Developing volley feel / fluidity / contact time

[klacr]

Lost in the shuffle

Hi all,
I'm a (tenaciously struggling) 4.0 player, and I've been working on my volleys lately; I'm realizing that I just don't have the feel, and (consequently or also) it seems to me that the ball is really just bouncing off the face of my racket in a super short ricochet - not at all fluid, and I lack control of both depth and angle.

The advice and things I read on the volley seem so conflicting: it's a short swing, don't follow through, but don't punch it; firm grip but soft hands??

Great pro volleys really look so effortless, so super fluid - I really get the feeling they are getting a much longer contact time, carrying the ball a bit, even though they are dealing with a lot more pace, etc.

So, my question(s): what's really going on with the pro volley, and how do you develop this short-but-not-punched stroke?

Thanks for any and all advice and pointers....
-frank

This thread is something else.
First off, I'd like to thank Frank (faultsnaces) for starting it and opening up this dialogue.

It really shows the passion of our forum contributors when they can take an innocent post like the one above and turn it into a colorful debate on a shot that some would consider dead.

Geoff, 10splayer, tennis_chiro and all the others...
I hear what you are saying. I understand it. Fact is, you guys are not wrong nor right, just speaking in different dialects.
I'm all about the basic fundamental volley technique. But when I play I always find myself using this "snapback" volley technique. Why? It's all situational. Much like a forehand reverse finish is evident in lobs and late balls. Getting a volley at your shoelaces or below the height of the net requires a different mentality and technical nuances than a volley that is above the net. For many players that are comfortable up at net, they don't even think about it. I don't. It's just natural.

All that has been said in this thread is accurate, but coming from two different POV's. Ask a great volleyer and they will tell you all sorts of shots and reactions that they can create and manipulate. Will the classic volley ever go away? Not if tennis wants to advance into higher forms and include more of a snapback volley. These two shots play off one another. It's a heavy, deep blistering forehand that sets up the short ball. It's the firm, fluid and purposeful first volley sent deep in the court that can set up the snapback.
Modern volleyers still have roots in the classics... Bryan Brothers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9qQbRitBRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWLI14pN_QI

The game and shots can advance, but only if the player knows how to get there and has the foundation for it.
Geoff talks about the uni grip and how it could take over tennis. It may, it may not. But Geoff's level of interest and loyalty in the shot and all other shots should not be undermined. there was a player that had the Uni Grip...Alberto Berasategui about 20+years ago. No big change or revolution after him...Maybe one day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78

But the most important issue on this thread is the one we have drifted far away from. That issue is the lifeblood of our knowledge and our purpose... THE STUDENT!!!

Frank does ask the question about the pro volley and thats fine. But how can he incorporate those elements into his game. But he also shared with us his own issues. Lack of soft hands, control and depth. No mention of pace or ultra aggression. He needs to develop the feel first, the basics. from there, as he advances, the snapback could in fact become a critical weapon in his arsenal. But let's put one foot in fron of the other. Walk before you can run. Let's help Frank's game.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

faultsandaces and Klacr...Good point about not neglecting the student's initial request in the the post...and very important we give the right advice wherever possible.

It's tough to add to what these articles so eloquently teaches anyone interested in learning to volley better. Plus, don_budge's thread he posted a link back to in post #6.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/advtennis.html

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/dr_jack_groppel/attacking_volley/attacking_volley.html

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/dr_jack_groppel/attacking_volley/attacking_volley.html

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/pat_cash/developing_world_class_volleys_the_backhand_volley/

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/allen_fox/approachandvolleyimages/approachandvolley.html

In my view there is no need for snap back volleys....or swing volleys for that matter...whatever the situation. If you look back to the classic era where many of the players were outstanding at volleying, you will see no snapping or swing volleys.

The volley is a stroke not a punch in most situations, meaning there is significantly more follow through that many think. I personally think if you snap the wrist you will interrupt the follow through and ruin the stroke. Snapping the wrist is cheap way to get power but a disaster for consistency. It's a club players mistake.

Don't take my word for it by any means. Go into the archive and watch those old school clips from the best and purest volleyers you will ever see. If you are the type of player who learns "visually" it will be the best lesson you have ever had.

[bottle]

http://youtu.be/Lfk4wRP9gvI?list=PLD0FE460FD37E5D04

What do you think of this?

I love it. This man is one of my favorite polymaths whether he is coaching Robert Redford or anyone else.

[bottle]

Just look at Pat Rafter's volleys and decide for yourself....

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...evelFront1.pct

I love this one especially (rear 3), see arm start first and then his shoulders finish the job.

[bottle]

Oh good, another dude revolutionizing/reinventing the the wheel...But seriously, very little of what you're saying has anything to do with how to volley well.

Oh, and you're right, Rafter sucks as a volleyer. Can't think of anything one could learn from him..

I have a whole book on volleying somewhere written by a former Dartmouth varsity tennis coach-- John Kennerly or something like that. Sorry I don't have time to go down in the basement and look for the book and get the author's name right and I didn't immediately find it on the internet either. This laziness is all part of my approach to tennis however. Entertain (and steal where appropriate) the ideas and screw scholarship and attribution and very literary don't you know good manners. Who cares where the idea came from if we're all tennis players and every idea in tennis belongs to us.

One of this volley coach's ideas is to hit balls above the net cord with some wrist but never use wrist on balls below the net cord. This might be too reasonable for me but the idea has always stayed with me. It is perhaps a case where one does better trusting impulse over reason.

[GeoffWilliams]

This thread is something else.
First off, I'd like to thank Frank (faultsnaces) for starting it and opening up this dialogue.

It really shows the passion of our forum contributors when they can take an innocent post like the one above and turn it into a colorful debate on a shot that some would consider dead.

Geoff, 10splayer, tennis_chiro and all the others...
I hear what you are saying. I understand it. Fact is, you guys are not wrong nor right, just speaking in different dialects.
I'm all about the basic fundamental volley technique. But when I play I always find myself using this "snapback" volley technique. Why? It's all situational. Much like a forehand reverse finish is evident in lobs and late balls. Getting a volley at your shoelaces or below the height of the net requires a different mentality and technical nuances than a volley that is above the net. For many players that are comfortable up at net, they don't even think about it. I don't. It's just natural.

All that has been said in this thread is accurate, but coming from two different POV's. Ask a great volleyer and they will tell you all sorts of shots and reactions that they can create and manipulate. Will the classic volley ever go away? Not if tennis wants to advance into higher forms and include more of a snapback volley. These two shots play off one another. It's a heavy, deep blistering forehand that sets up the short ball. It's the firm, fluid and purposeful first volley sent deep in the court that can set up the snapback.
Modern volleyers still have roots in the classics... Bryan Brothers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9qQbRitBRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWLI14pN_QI

The game and shots can advance, but only if the player knows how to get there and has the foundation for it.
Geoff talks about the uni grip and how it could take over tennis. It may, it may not. But Geoff's level of interest and loyalty in the shot and all other shots should not be undermined. there was a player that had the Uni Grip...Alberto Berasategui about 20+years ago. No big change or revolution after him...Maybe one day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78

But the most important issue on this thread is the one we have drifted far away from. That issue is the lifeblood of our knowledge and our purpose... THE STUDENT!!!

Frank does ask the question about the pro volley and thats fine. But how can he incorporate those elements into his game. But he also shared with us his own issues. Lack of soft hands, control and depth. No mention of pace or ultra aggression. He needs to develop the feel first, the basics. from there, as he advances, the snapback could in fact become a critical weapon in his arsenal. But let's put one foot in fron of the other. Walk before you can run. Let's help Frank's game.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Good post. I'd say listen to this guy. The snap back is only useful for most at high balls sitting. I have learned only after years of trying, to use it on lower balls, which most cannot, as it is too difficult to manage the timing. A 4.0 definitely can't manage it. It's best for them to stick only with blocking volleys using only their feet and body to hit the ball without follow through. Those volleys will sit and lay up for easy passes but you got to walk before you run to the net. Agassi only invented the swing volley due to his 4.0 normal blocking volley was so bad he was useless at net. Now every coach is teaching that shot! Berasetegui only used it on clay, where it is not possible to serve and volley any more nor was it ever, Tim Henmans' semi aside.

[10splayer]

faultsandaces and Klacr...Good point about not neglecting the student's initial request in the the post...and very important we give the right advice wherever possible.

It's tough to add to what these articles so eloquently teaches anyone interested in learning to volley better. Plus, don_budge's thread he posted a link back to in post #6.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/advtennis.html

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/dr_jack_groppel/attacking_volley/attacking_volley.html

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/dr_jack_groppel/attacking_volley/attacking_volley.html

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/pat_cash/developing_world_class_volleys_the_backhand_volley/

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/allen_fox/approachandvolleyimages/approachandvolley.html

In my view there is no need for snap back volleys....or swing volleys for that matter...whatever the situation. If you look back to the classic era where many of the players were outstanding at volleying, you will see no snapping or swing volleys.

The volley is a stroke not a punch in situations, meaning there is significantly more follow through that many think. I personally think if you snap the wrist you will interrupt the follow through and ruin the stroke. Snapping the wrist is cheap way to get power but a disaster for consistency. It's a club players mistake.

Don't take my word for it by any means. Go into the archive and watch those old school clips from the best and purest volleyers you will ever see. If you are the type of player who learns "visually" it will be the best lesson you have ever had.

This says it all..I can't wrap my head around the fact an accomplished volleyer cant hit the ball hard enough without snapping the racquet head forward..

[don_budge]

Fundamentals versus "The Gimmick"...

But the most important issue on this thread is the one we have drifted far away from. That issue is the lifeblood of our knowledge and our purpose... THE STUDENT!!!

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

It's tough to add to what these articles so eloquently teaches anyone interested in learning to volley better. Plus, don_budge's thread he posted a link back to in post #6.

Trust me…if this is a serious student he got his money's worth. The back and forth has been extremely enlightening as well as the material that has been cited. Comments by tennis_chiro and 10splayer are always worth careful consideration…whether you "agree" or "disagree" with anything that they say.

Points by klacr and Stotty are true to wisdom as well…at least from my perspective. That perspective is that of a teacher. I teach volleys and I teach them early on and I never stop teaching them. I teach how to get to the net too…I teach approach shots. I also teach baseline tennis and I teach patience. So there you have it…the student must learn the patience that it takes to duel from the baseline and play the last shot or he must take things into his hands at the first sight of opportunity and conclude things at the net.

Personally I found it particularly gratifying that Stotty remembered my post way back in position #6. That was quite a thread too. I put my heart into that one…as much as my heart is breaking now. But that is part of it too…isn't it? It's something that we all can agree on now…something we all have in common. Differences of opinion aside.

Regarding the tone of the thread and such…the likes of GeoffWilliams and his "gimmick" the slap shot or whatever else you want to call it. It's fun to read about his wacky sense of tennis…wacky in the sense that he is mostly wacking the ball or whatever it is that he does with it. It's a game that I am unfamiliar with…the one that he writes about. Funny enough…Bobby Jones said the same thing about Jack Nicklaus. He said that he is playing a game that he was unfamiliar with. My dear old tennis coach was one good teacher and he stressed fundamentals to his students and warned against gimmicks…as did Bill Tilden. Gimmicks have a nasty habit of letting you down when you need them the most. So many matches have been blown right on the precipice of victory by the unwise selection of a "gimmicky" shot when a fundamentally sound if less glorious rendition might have gotten the job done.

In this way I will always be in the corner of guys like tennis_chiro, 10splayer and Stotty. Whereas klacr makes allowances for swinging volleys and this other creation…the slap shot volley or whatever it is. I'm in his corner too. Statistically speaking it is a poor selection and you won't win year in and year out with it. It won't stand the test of time or the heat of the battle for that matter. Not against any player worth his salt. Personally I don't give a twit if one player uses it or not. If a student of mine insists on using the like…what do I care? They end up being the captain of their own ship anyways.

This says it all..I can't wrap my head around the fact an accomplished volleyer cant hit the ball hard enough without snapping the racquet head forward..

Amen…you go snapping that racquet head at anything you are asking for trouble in my book. And you know what the book is…it's Tilden.

Take Roger Federer for instance. He has tried to resurrect his serve and volley and his approach and volley game somewhat. It seems that Stefan Edberg has been hired as a consultant in this regard. Do you know what I see as a result of that collaboration? I see more fundamentals being emphasized and less of the flashy "swinging volleys" and do you know what? His net game is vastly improved…perhaps an even bigger thanks are owed to his bigger racquet. Federer's fundamental volley motion is much more through the ball than it is slicing down across the ball that it has been recently prior to his resurgence.

But this is a student…this faultsnaces person. If I am any kind of teacher worth my salt I don't go bandying around a shot in the dark to him. I stress the fundamentals. The resource on this site are quite vast in this regard. The articles that Stotty cites plus the articles by johnyandel contain a wealth of information not to mention video support. For me…it is always about the student and my students don't happen to be the most gifted in the world so I have no choice as far as I am concerned. I stress the fundamentals and I repeat myself over and over again. I shy away from the gimmicks and the more "obtuse form" of tennis that GeoffWilliams writes about. As far as I am concerned the "equipment guy" stuff is obtuse as well.

I am not certain that any of that stuff really matters all that much in the end. I sort of lump it in with all of the twitches and superstitious behaviour along with the endless towel fondling and the like. Hype and hyperbole. Checking the batch of balls before every point. All of the shenanigans during the changeovers. The suitcases and luggage taken to the court for a simple tennis match. It seems to me that the professional game is rather gimmicky in it's promotion and the lust for attention. It has become wacky and obtuse in it's own right…to say nothing of the lack of net play.

Even so…I refrain from saying whether or not I disagree or agree with this one or that one. For me it is all interesting…even though my mind is pretty much made up already. Not to say that it is closed. I learned a thing or two about volleys in this discussion. I thought the articles by John were particularly good. Welby Van Horn sums it all up quite nicely. My thread deserved an honourable mention…which I got from my good buddy Stotty. Do you want to develop feel, touch, fluidity and contact point? Well…you better damn well practice the thing moving forwards…and backwards. You cannot just camp out at the net and practice half heartedly swinging…or punching at the ball. You gotta be in motion…man. If you are in motion you are going to realize real quick that all of this wrist snapping business is tantamount to a shot in the dark.

Life is good. Live to play another day. If you lose that thing that you love most in life…go out and find something you can love even more. Never quit. Never surrender. It's not over…until the last point has been played. You'll have to excuse me now…I must get back to my Frankie.

[GeoffWilliams]

The snap back is beyond a 4.0 ability anyway, and it is certainly not a shot in the dark, as Budge said. What I've come to expect from him: nothing too thinly disguised, and I would bet he has never hit a single snap back. Like I said, it takes years to develop and learn. Much simpler to stick with a rigid/blocked volley and I use those most of the time any way. It has not been food for thought. It's been food for vomit. The game is filled with guys the world over who have not learned nor listened to any new shot technique. Part of the reason so few kids coming up are world class from the US: most coaches are old school and won't train any thing new or exciting. One exception is the swing volley, a shot that no one espoused before Agassi. Now all doubles pros use it. And all the best doubles players use the snap back off higher balls. Anything said to the contrary is ignoring reality. Head in the sand deserves reality checks.

[GeoffWilliams]

Rafter never won Wimbledon due to two reasons: not enough stick on blocked volleys, and not enough stick on kick serves. These gave his opponents confidence that they could break him under pressure, which they both did. Sampras and Ivo were able to put more on their serves and volleys in the end and to believe that he could not. If he were playing in today's game, he would win many matches, let alone a slam. Great guy with consistent volleys, and a model for the blocked volley trainer. No stick, no trophy.

[gzhpcu]

Rafter never won Wimbledon due to two reasons: not enough stick on blocked volleys, and not enough stick on kick serves. These gave his opponents confidence that they could break him under pressure, which they both did. Sampras and Ivo were able to put more on their serves and volleys in the end and to believe that he could not. If he were playing in today's game, he would win many matches, let alone a slam. Great guy with consistent volleys, and a model for the blocked volley trainer. No stick, no trophy.

Still, he got two US Opens... And he knocked out Agassi at Wimbledon...

[don_budge]

Something doesn't add up here...

Rafter never won Wimbledon due to two reasons: not enough stick on blocked volleys, and not enough stick on kick serves. These gave his opponents confidence that they could break him under pressure, which they both did. Sampras and Ivo were able to put more on their serves and volleys in the end and to believe that he could not. If he were playing in today's game, he would win many matches, let alone a slam. Great guy with consistent volleys, and a model for the blocked volley trainer. No stick, no trophy.

Still, he got two US Opens... And he knocked out Agassi at Wimbledon...

Couldn't stick the volley…eh? Checkmate.

[klacr]

Rafter never won Wimbledon due to two reasons: not enough stick on blocked volleys, and not enough stick on kick serves. These gave his opponents confidence that they could break him under pressure, which they both did. Sampras and Ivo were able to put more on their serves and volleys in the end and to believe that he could not. If he were playing in today's game, he would win many matches, let alone a slam. Great guy with consistent volleys, and a model for the blocked volley trainer. No stick, no trophy.

Mission nearly impossible having to play Sampras or Ivanisevic in Wimbledon finals. Rafter still has those two US Open titles. Had to play Rusedski and Philippoussis in finals in NYC.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Patrick "No Stick on the Volley" Rafter

Mission nearly impossible having to play Sampras or Ivanisevic in Wimbledon finals. Rafter still has those two US Open titles. Had to play Rusedski and Philippoussis in finals in NYC.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Rafter beat both Sampras and Ivanisevic at the 1998 U. S. Open. If only he taken the time to learn the "slap shot" volley. Who knows?

[klacr]

Rafter beat both Sampras and Ivanisevic at the 1998 U. S. Open. If only he taken the time to learn the "slap shot" volley. Who knows?

hehe.

Rafter was fun to watch.

Little trivia for you guys. Rafter one of only two players to ever be ranked #1 in the world and never win a clay court title. Name the other player.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton